Sole accused sought pre-arrest bail under S.438 CrPC. Court found custodial interrogation necessary and risk of witness intimidation. Bail dismissed as not a fit case.
Application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2016/22ND ASHADHA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 4278 of 2016 () -------------------------------
CRIME NO. 21/2016 OF KAZHAKUTTOM EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, THIRUVANANDAPURAM DISTRICT
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:-:
VIPIN @ MANU,
AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.VISWAMBARAN PILLAI, VILAYIL VEEDU, CHEMPAKAMANGALAM, VAYILOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ
SRI.SAJJU.S
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:-:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2. EXCISE INSPECTOR, KAZHAKKUTTOM EXCISE RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 008.
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R. REMA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~
B.A No.4278 of 2016
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 13th July, 2016
O R D E R
The petitioner herein, the sole accused, seeks pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.21 of 2016 of the Kazhakkuttom Excise Range registered under Section 55(g) of the Kereala Abkari Act.
B.A No.4278 of 2016
2
the materials including the case diary and the report of the investigating officer, I find that some more things remain to be done by the police as part of investigation, and some more witnesses remain to be questioned. I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as part of investigation in this case, and I find that the accused will influence or intimidate the witnesses if he is now granted pre arrest bail. However, if the petitioner so opts, he can surrender before the investigating officer or before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. After necessary interrogation, the request for regular bail can be considered by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. In
B.A No.4278 of 2016
3
the particular facts and circumstances of the case including the seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged, and also the stage of investigation, I find that this is not a fit case where the discretionary relief of pre arrest bail can be granted.
In the result, this application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.
Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE
ma
/True copy/ P.S to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to the accused in a wash management case under the Kerala Abkari Act.
VIPIN @ MANU
STATE OF KERALA
EXCISE INSPECTOR
P.Ubaid
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
